9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the adjudicating authority on 25.1.2006, who had sanctioned refund to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 24967 of 2015-M/s NVR Forgings v. Union of India and others, decided on 22.3.2016, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Revisionary Authority cannot be sustained, as the same has been passed by the officer of the same rank as is the appellate authority. The Revisionary Authority had to be an officer of a higher rank than the appellate authority, whose order is impugned before the Revisionary Authority. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid legal position. Heard learned counsel for the parties a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue.(2): Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner was acting as assessing authority and though revisional powers were delegated to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, the said powers could be exercised by an officer only in relation to orders passed by his subordinates and not in respect of orders passed by officer of the same or higher rank. He relies upon judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Satya Winery & Distillery Private Ltd. v. State of A.P. (2000) 117 STC 291 and submits that the question of law may be read accordingly. The question appears to have been wrongly formulated. It has been pointed out that the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Satya Winery has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India who was also Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. Thus, the order in appeal as well as revisionary order had been passed by the officers of the same rank which is not permissible as per law. Adverting to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, it may be noticed that the said decisions were based on individual fact situation involved therein. Thus, the respondents cannot derive any advantage from the said pronouncements. 9. In view of the above, the petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 28.8.2015, Annexure P.8 in CWP No.24967 of 2015 and order dated 16.9.2015, Annexure P.5 in CWP No.26321 of 2015 are set aside. However, liberty is granted to the State to proceed afresh in accordance wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
